Facility Siting in the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives on Knowledge Production and Application

7. Site Selection of LULU Facilities: The Experience of Taiwan

7 Site Selection of LULU Facilities: The Experience of Taiwan Chang-tay Chiou INTRODUCTION LULU (Locally Unwanted Land Uses) syndrome has become one of society’s controversial issues . No matter where it occurs—in a developed country or in an underdeveloped one—proposed construction of new facilities is often met with forceful public opposition . Related examples are landfills or solid waste incinerators, airports, prisons, low-income housing projects, electric power stations, transportation facilities, recreational facilities, water supply facilities, social service facilities, etc . The situating of LULU facilities is subject to criticism by community residents, concerned grassroots’ groups, and local LULU politicians . Site selection protests have become frequent, and some have even turned violent . NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) syndrome has grown as project opponents have attempted to alter, delay, or stop public construction projects . The site planner invariably faces some form of paralysis in the site selection of public facilities . Thus, breaking through the predicament of LULU syndrome in the site selection process becomes one of the most exigent tasks for site practitioners and urban planners . Indeed, site selection of a public infrastructure decision and the NIMBY syndrome situation arising is a common scenario of industrialized nations’ worldwide (Lake, 1987; Popper, 1987) . NIMBYism research has always been the focus of urban planners and site practitioners . How can a LULU, NIMBY, or NIMTOO (Not In My Term Of Office) site be built without setting off riots or endless litigation? Are there any possibilities to effectively resolve the tension caused by annoying NIMBY constituencies? There are several related studies, but the answers are inconclusive . The aim of this research is to examine NIMBYism in Taiwan and offer our experiences to place LULU facilities successfully . Facility_final2207.indd 141 22/07/2011 5:32 PM 142 | Facility Siting in the Asia-Pacific This paper focuses on Taiwan as an example, specifically the location selection and execution of facility construction . This is because it is not only one of the most active members of the four Asia “dragons,” but is also a miracle of economic development . As an island country with a high population density, the Taiwanese are not only well educated but are more likely to pay particular attention to improving their environment and living standards compared to other developing countries . Antipollution movements are common in this transitional society . Therefore, public protest and social movements derived from NIMBY syndrome in Taiwan are more passionate than other developing countries . The completion of this study is based on a systematic survey of 24 LULU cases in Taiwan, 9 cases of electric power stations, and 15 cases of solid waste incinerators, which were established over the last decade . Unlike past literature concerned with the effect of “economic” factors such as compensation or auctions in situating the LULU site, the author urges local government decision makers to be more sensitive to the influence of “noneconomic” factors in making the LULU decision, including public participation, social trust, and local politics in the site selection process . It is my hope that the Taiwan experience will give readers some useful lessons on how to promote a successful site location and plan for its smooth operation . Most importantly, I recommend some ways of resolving NIMBY confrontations, so policy planners can carry out their public infrastructure projects successfully and thereby reduce the cost burden on society . REDEFINING “LULU SYNDROME” There are many terms regarding LULU; for instance, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (BANANA), Not In My Bottom Line (NIMBL), Not On Our Street (NOOS), etc . According to NIMBY researchers, LULU syndrome began 30 years ago in the United States . Then, the focus of NIMBYism was on environmental pollution facilities, such as a waste processing plant (Halstead et al ., 1993), toxic-treatment facilities (Bryant & Mohai, 1992), airport (Hall, 1980), etc . But recently many cases have occurred having nothing to do with pollution, such as human service facilities (Takahashi & Dear, 1997), and site selection of prisons in rural North Carolina (Hoyman & Weinberg, 2006; Sechrest, 1992) . What is NIMBY? The definition of NIMBY is confusing . Inhaber (1998) pointed out NIMBY syndrome is actually a kind of hatred or dislike of the public infrastructure’s repeal consciousness . He describes such a phenomenon as a “dragon” and the process of resolution as “slaying the NIMBY Facility_final2207.indd 142 22/07/2011 5:32 PM Site Selection of LULU Facilities: The Experience of Taiwan | 143 dragon .” As Richman and Boerner (2006, p . 37) indicated LULU is defined as...